conscript redesign

#1
2 years ago

ALRIGHT so every discussion about the meh status of cons brings out the "but what about grens then" and every attempted discussion about grens brings out the "well cons barely beat them now, what about after?" discussions. this is something we can all agree, this relationship is more or less balanced. enter WFA. fuck balance, cons get murdered by volks, grens get eaten by tommies and rifles or wiped anything with more AOE than a rain drop

we have to ask ourselves: is the relationship between cons and grens something we keep? is it the holy grail we draw WFA into? or is it holding the EFA behind?
in the case that it is the latter i would like to explore FAIRLY low work avenues to bring the EFA up to the unique and powerful standards of the WFA

in the even that we decide the latter i would like to talk about how to break cons away from grens and instead become what they were SUPPOSED to be, a unique utility unit that is expendable

but first we need to think: what makes us want to keep our troop alive?
basic human decency
veterancy buffs
manpower bleed
weapon upgrades
our generals yell at us when we lose them

well heres the thing, cons cant be expendable if they bleed us and we dont WANT to lose them if they are getting vetted. we want to preserve that. and that, is what i would like to change

im going to list the changes and then why

so heres the idea:

-restructure soviet into a linear tech with the exact same unit composition as now, just....linear
-pacing similar to UKF, full tech to full tech (minus hammer/anvil) so t1 would be built ~brit t1
-increase starting manpower
-conscript squad as starter unit
-CE now gain satchels, penals lose them
-Cons no longer gain vet

they would look something like:
200mp(?)
orrah
molotov for free but long cooldown
merge
sandbags
only 4 rifles (2 unarmed models)

this allows the soviet to grab lots of ground to start but unable to hold the line individually (but multiple squads will do not so poorly)
with CE needing to be built we allow the soviet to start on field control ASAP but also dont need to retreat when the fuel arrives to tech up.

ENTER T1

once T1 is built, the player will gain access to penals, snipers and cars, but more importantly PASSIVE buffs to cons, no fuss and no fuckery
t1 would return the cons 1 of their missing rifles, speed up the cooldown on the molitov, receive their AT nade and reduce their target size slightly

this makes cons a little better at fighting, but still leaves lots of room for penals, who now fill a strictly combat role. no demolition, no utility, no flexibility, gain shock troop grenade (wooo)

once t2 is teched further buffs to cons are given:
they get their last rifle back and a small reduction in reinforcement cost. nothing too big, but now we have cons like we have now, but at the bargain price of 200mp as well as penals to do heavy lifting, and maxims to suck suppress the enemy do their thing.

t3 once teched would get their vet 2 buff applied

t4 would grant half its current vet 3 bonuses as well as a -10% rec acc buff and 10% rof buff and 10% faster decap/capping speed when using oorah

the idea is that as the game progresses you arent too worried about losing your conscripts because there are many more to take their place, they WILL be less effective stat wise than they are now by games end, but also cheaper and better supported. additionally by breaking cons away from what they are now, grens can be changed to better represent mainline infantry post WFA instead of pussy footing around how cons will react, trying to balance a core combat unit around how it will react vs cannon fodder is as foolish as balancing cannon fodder around a mainline combat unit

now, this is a work in progress, nothing is set in stone by ANY MEANS i would like your constructive input on the idea, possible tweaks... all that jazz.

«1

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    Maxim would come a lot later than before , it will not be worth the money at later stages , i would also suggest buffing maxim in some way.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited February 2017

    That is an insane amount of work and balancing that Relic needs to test. Anything this ambitious is just a dream. Sorry man. I'm also torn between whether we should use EFA or WFA armies as a powercreep benchmark.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    I really like the idea. But its much work.
  • #5
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    I love the idea AND your humor. You little aardvarks always never disappoint.

    However, the idea could use a little tweaking and "pizzazz"

    For one we could keep the current tech structure and....

    • Initially make cons cost 200 manpower and have 4 rifles and 2 pistols, and a free, but slow throwing molotov (what we have currently)

    • still have to research AT nades

    • T1 replaces 1 pistol with an 1 SVT and reduces throwing time by 20%

    • T2 replaces 1 pistol with an 1 SVT and reduces throwing time by 20%

    • Going both T1 and T2 makes all conscripts gain vet faster (a noticeable number, I was thinking 25% or so)

    • A new side tech, replacing the molotov tech, is available at T4 and makes infantry 15% cheaper and faster to reinforce and cons 30% cheaper and faster to reinforce.

    • going either tier (1 and/or 2) lowers the cost of the other tier by 25%, making back teching more comfortable.

    you can still go one of the tiers and go straight for T70s for the early light armor and firepower. But the tradeoff is now more apparent as your cons will be not as effective if you went a more linear playstyle of T1 + T2.

    This also makes conscripts useful, which is an unattended side affect.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,586
    edited February 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    -restructure soviet into a linear tech with the exact same unit composition as now, just....linear

    Sorry, but no, we don't need 3rd ostheer.
    Two are enough.
    Any conscript changes will have to be done without altering tech structure.

    We're NOT stripping yet another army off its identity.

  • #7
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Katitof said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    -restructure soviet into a linear tech with the exact same unit composition as now, just....linear

    Sorry, but no, we don't need 3rd ostheer.
    Two are enough.
    Any conscript changes will have to be done without altering tech structure.

    We're NOT stripping yet another army off its identity.

    Why? We're going to either have 3 Soviets (USF and OKW skipping) or 3 Osts (New-Soviet, UKF, Ostheer).

  • #8
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Yeh I think grittle has the right ideas here dark, the concept is great, it just needs some tweaking. Allowing a player to pick between t1 and t2 adds variance and opens up new strategies, by having each building give cons something different, whether that be a full set of rifles on the rifle command, or access to their at grenades/molos from the support kampaneya, that way cons can either be pushed into an early screening troop to protect penals and snipers, or have utility to snare light vehicles and clear garrisons when working with the support weapons.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,586
    edited February 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    @Katitof said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    -restructure soviet into a linear tech with the exact same unit composition as now, just....linear

    Sorry, but no, we don't need 3rd ostheer.
    Two are enough.
    Any conscript changes will have to be done without altering tech structure.

    We're NOT stripping yet another army off its identity.

    Why? We're going to either have 3 Soviets (USF and OKW skipping) or 3 Osts (New-Soviet, UKF, Ostheer).

    Soviets don't skip anything.
    You CHOOSE one or the other for opening, then you have linear tech.

    Only faction which truly seems to be intended to skip tiers is USF as they are designed with good flexibility.

    OKW also doesn't skip, they are very flexible, they do backtech though, because its too beneficial not to, either for the raw bonuses or for KT.

    Expecting tech redesign for soviets right after they got tech redesign is beyond naive.

  • #10
    2 years ago
    @Grittle i like it.
  • #11
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @Katitof said:
    Soviets don't skip anything.
    You CHOOSE one or the other for opening, then you have linear tech.

    Only faction which truly seems to be intended to skip tiers is USF as they are designed with good flexibility.

    OKW also doesn't skip, they are very flexible, they do backtech though, because its too beneficial not to, either for the raw bonuses or for KT.

    Expecting tech redesign for soviets right after they got tech redesign is beyond naive.

    Soviet and USF teching is similar:
    Soviet choose between T1 or T2 and USF chose between LT or Captain.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,586

    @Vipper said:

    @Katitof said:
    Soviets don't skip anything.
    You CHOOSE one or the other for opening, then you have linear tech.

    Only faction which truly seems to be intended to skip tiers is USF as they are designed with good flexibility.

    OKW also doesn't skip, they are very flexible, they do backtech though, because its too beneficial not to, either for the raw bonuses or for KT.

    Expecting tech redesign for soviets right after they got tech redesign is beyond naive.

    Soviet and USF teching is similar:
    Soviet choose between T1 or T2 and USF chose between LT or Captain.

    USF teching ends at Major.
    Soviet teching doesn't end at Battalion command.

    USF starts with couple of options at T0 and after couple of mins goes either T1 or T2 or upgrades.
    Soviets can open with T1 or T2, have nothing viable in T0 and upgrades can't cover what tier doesn't.

    OKW and USF teching is similar with OKW having more benefits for backtech as well as both offering you light armor options across both tiers you can go to first.

    Soviet one is completely different.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited February 2017

    @Katitof said:
    USF teching ends at Major.
    Soviet teching doesn't end at Battalion command.

    USF starts with couple of options at T0 and after couple of mins goes either T1 or T2 or upgrades.
    Soviets can open with T1 or T2, have nothing viable in T0 and upgrades can't cover what tier doesn't.

    OKW and USF teching is similar with OKW having more benefits for backtech as well as both offering you light armor options across both tiers you can go to first.

    Soviet one is completely different.

    If you think soviet have nothing viable in T0 watch some King of the hill games. You will see that conscript are used allot and are viable.

    @Katitof said:
    We're NOT stripping yet another army off its identity.

    (and who is this We by the way?)

    You mean like asking for Soviets to be less depended in commanders or asking for stock weapon upgrades for Conscripts or asking for stock hand held AT for Soviets?
    ////

    @ thedarkarmadillo
    I still like the idea Penal being cheap cannon fodder better.

    As for having no weapon I am under the impression that melee weapons are already in the game so the 2 model you mention could have melee weapons instead of no weapon at all.

  • #14
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited February 2017

    I like the idea a lot, but I have to agree it's almost too much. It seems like we'll be making things harder for the balance team, as now we'd need to balance cons stats in line with teching costs, which already gives me a headache.

    Can we all just get behind some veterancy changes? It seems like everyone agrees that the WFA mainlines scale astronomically better than the EFAs, let's either bring the WFA bonuses down, or add some spice to the lacking ones of the EFA.

    Some things I want changed:
    1. Synthesize mollys and AT nades into 1 research of 150mp 25 fu
    2. Split their massive received accuracy bonus (40%) at vet 3 into 2 smaller ones for vet 2 and 3 (would have the same total of 40%: maybe like 10-15% at vet 2, 30-25% at vet 3)
    3. Give them a 5-10% movement speed bonus at vet 3

    3 I would really like to test. It could be batshit OP, but my thought process comes from the idea that cons need to be close to do good and don't have a forward retreat. I can't find the values for how much of a movement speed increase any of the sprint abilities provide, so I'm not sure what percentage is in the realm of acceptable, if any.

    As I've suggested in the grens thread, they too need better veterancy bonuses. Just posting that so no one comes flying in accusing me of colluding with the Kremlin.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    I'm also torn between whether we should use EFA or WFA armies as a powercreep benchmark.

    EFA, if the game was balanced around WFA most fights would be over in seconds. Mass amounts of weapon upgrades, FRP everywhere, blobs, super accurate moving tanks. No way, SOV vs OST was down to a T in terms of balance, then they brought out OKW and USF and it all went to pot.

  • #16
    2 years ago

    Every fraction is bad design in comparison with CoH1... soooo... back to the roots?

  • #17
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,586

    @Widerstreit said:
    Every fraction is bad design in comparison with CoH1... soooo... back to the roots?

    Bought vet was fine?
    Brits which were ultimate AT and AI blob faction on MOBILE trucks that boosted resources AND emplacements were much, much stronger?
    Whole existence of PE?

    Time to get off these pink shades of nostalgia.

  • #18
    2 years ago

    CoH 1 Piat Blobs still give PTSD...

  • #19
    2 years ago
    The design was better, balancing is a other story. But bad design like in CoH2 makes it difficult... the reason why game never was balanced.
  • #20
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Widerstreit said:
    Every fraction is bad design in comparison with CoH1... soooo... back to the roots?

    OST and SOV were much better designed than any of the Coh vanilla factions, no bought vet, no kangaroo hordes or even the PE.

    WFA put a right wrench in those works, Brits were just a joke after that.

  • #21
    2 years ago

    More important question is whether relationship between conscripts and grenadiers, and volksgrenadiers, is appropriate if done without considering Penals ,which by my understanding is supposed to be the true counterpart.

    This change is done with the presumption that Conscripts ought to be much more mainline, and thus design the teching around that. I honestly don't see the point in that, since the better idea would still be to just get Penals out to augment conscripts, and vice versa....not throw all teh focus on conscripts just because they suck against something they're supposed to suck against in the first place.

  • #22
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    All infantry that arrive before minute one should be re-balanced especially since USF now have mortars, UKF are OP, VG now have access to sandbags and ST44, Penal have very far DPS.

  • #23
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    @Katitof said:

    Whole existence of PE?

    I never played CoH1 competetively, but dabbled in AI matches for a while. What made the PE such a problem, VG blobs?

  • #24
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited February 2017

    Aqua schrieb:

    @Katitof said:

    Whole existence of PE?

    I never played CoH1 competetively, but dabbled in AI matches for a while. What made the PE such a problem, VG blobs?

    It was very OP at release and had too much good stuff. But its design was genius. 

    Even buying vet is better as now, this is the only way to balance stuff over longer games. Of course it was too much, but a mix would be great. Like weapon- or armor-upgrades.

    And you are whining because of 2 or 3 bad balanced units of CoH1? Look at CoH2, there are much more...

    The hole tank-game was MUCH better in CoH1, also arty was better (much stuff, nearly no fuc*s and many counters), don't forget the base-building. And at least, the hole fraction design of every fraction.

    Thing CoH2 makes better? A retour gear, true sight, better way finding...

  • #25
    2 years ago
    Pehaps you should gp play some coh1 instead of hijacking balance threads based on cohw then
  • #26
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited February 2017
    Simply make a good second part. Take good stuff and ideas of CoH1, you don't have to invent a new kind of edged wheel. I am sure, a simple CoH1 clone with new engine would be a much better game.

    I payed for a game I never get. Like 100.000 other people too.
  • #27
    2 years ago
    Games like that exist, call of duty and any sports game ever. I would have been pretty pissed if i had spent all that money for the deluxe edition preorder and ended up with "company of heroes deluxe definative edition" i payed for a hell of alot more than that, ive got my moneys worth for sure but i paid for a new game, not a remake.

    Additionally im fairly certain we have sega buying relic to blame for what we have to work with. Rushing the finese work to release the game so it doesnt just get canned. The best we can do is try and make this game live up to its potential- especially now that the community is doing the work.


    To the point of the thread, i think, however its done, the only way to make cons "expendable" is to eliminate traditional vet amd go with globals tied/locked behind vet. As i said in the OP it was a wip, but thats the spirit of it.
  • #28
    2 years ago
    mintyminty Huntington BeachPosts: 19

    Having Cons start with only 4 rifles would suggest that the Soviet Army didn't care about the lives of their soldiers or that they suffered from major logistics failure. Although logistics failure did occur it wasn't common enough for it to be a highlighted feature of the Soviet Armies's basic infantry. To me this would be as insulting if Relic made the American tank crew members all African American and had to repair at a separate HQ.

  • #29
    2 years ago
    mintyminty Huntington BeachPosts: 19

    If they started as a four man squad, all equipped with rifles of course, and could be upgraded to a six man squad it would make a lot more sense.

  • #30
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @minty said:
    Having Cons start with only 4 rifles would suggest that the Soviet Army didn't care about the lives of their soldiers or that they suffered from major logistics failure. Although logistics failure did occur it wasn't common enough for it to be a highlighted feature of the Soviet Armies's basic infantry. To me this would be as insulting if Relic made the American tank crew members all African American and had to repair at a separate HQ.

    African Americans did had separate quarter during WW II. They actually where separated units. Imo you should not be insulted by thing that actually to place historically.

  • #31
    2 years ago

    but with 4 men and their current stats no one would ever build them, they have hard time fighting most infantrie now dropping models left and right before they must face hug their enemy to do the damage.

    i just hope they keep current combat stats (cons suck against almost all inf already) and fix utility, the molotov is a sidetech wich is not worth it now. merge models retain the bad recc acc maybe that can be changed when a vetted squad merges. maybe even give them the ostruppen acc bonus when in cover at vet 2 or 3. the cons discription is (good when in cover)

    i want to see what they plan for conscripts.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.